REGIONALREPORTS Harnessing Butterfly Biodiversity for Improving Livelihoods and Forest Conservation: TheKipepeo Project IANGORDON WASHINGTONA YIEMBA The Kipepeo Projectisn co111m11nity-bnsedbutterfly farmingprojectonthe margins of Arab11ko-Sokoke Forest onthe north canst of Kenya. This f orest is n globnllyimportant forest for biodiversityconservation.Inthe early1990s, 54% to 59% of the local co11111111nitywanted the entire forest cl enred for settle-ment nnd tire forest wns i11vnded by farmers onseveral occasions.The Kipepeo Project wns set 11pto c/rn11ge co1111111111ity nttit11des to tireforest by giving them n stake initsconservation. Kipepeo trained farmersliving next tothe forest to renr forest b11tterflies.B11tterflypupae were p11rclrnsed fro111the farmers for exporttothe live b11tterfly exhibit ind11stryinE11rope nnd tire United States. C1111111lntivecomm11nity earnings fro1111994 to2001exceeded $130,000 with significantpositive effects onbothlivelihoodsnnd attitudes.The projecthns been finmrcinllyself-s11stniningsince1999.B11tterflymonitoringindicates tlrntthere hnve bee11no adverse effectsonwild butterfly populations. Keywords: Arab11ko-Sokoke Forest; b11tterfly farming;inco111e generation; 11onti111berforest products; forest-ndjncent communities; benefit shnri11g Arabuko-Sokoke Forest (ASF)is an island of unique biodiversity in a sea of human poverty. Lying on the north coast of Kenya and occupying an area of 42,000 hectares, it is the largest remaining protected fragment of a forest mosaic that once stretched from southern Somalia to northern Mozambique. Because of its relictual status (Burgess, Clarke, & Rodgers, 1998), it is also one of the most important biodiversity sites in Kenya. It has been ranked as the second most important forest for threatened bird conservation on mainland Africa (Collar & Stuart, 1988) and is one of 19 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Kenya that have been prioritized as criti-calsitesforintensiveandimmediateconservationaction(Bennun& fo11r11nlof E11 viro11111e11l&Develop111e11 t, Vol.12, No. 1, March200382-98 DOI: 10.1177 /1070496502250439 2003 Sage Publica lions 82 Schwartz IIMPACT OF STATECAPACITY81 Skocpol, T.(1990). Bringing the state back in: Strategies of analysis in current research. In P.Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, &T. Skocpol (Eds.), Bringing the state back in (pp. 3-43). New York:Cambridge University Press. Smil, V.(1998).The e11viro11111entoutlook forChinn.Unpublished manuscript. State Environmental Protection Administration. (1998).Selected e11viro11111e11tnlstandards of thePeople'sRepublic of Chinn(1979-1997) . Beijing:Author. State Environmental Protection Administration. (n.d.) Report 011the state of tile e11viro11111e11t inChinn2000.RetrievedDecember5,2001,fromhttp:/ /www.zhb.gov.cn/english/ SOE/ soechina2000 I english/waterI water_e.htm State plan for protection of the ecosystem good for all. (1999, February 15). T/1e Chinn Daily. State Statistical Bureau. (1987-1997). Zhong Guo To11gji Nin11jin11[State statistical yearbook of China] . Beijing: Zhong Guo Tongj i Chuban She. Stepan, A. (1978). The state and society: Peruin co111pnrntive perspective. Princeton, NJ:Prince-ton University Press. Taihu's water quality improves. (1999, January 8).T/1eC/1i11nDaily. Toomany nutrients harm lake. (1998,December 3).The C/1i11nDaily. Turner, J. L., &Wu,F.(2001).Development of environmental NGOs inMainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. In Proceedings ofGreen NGOn11d E11viro11111e11tnl ]oumnlist For11111 (pp. 1-2). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. World Bank. (1997).Clear water, blue skies: China's enviro11111entinthe new century. Washing-ton, DC:Author. World Health Organization. (1993). Guidelines for drinking water quality (2nd ed., Vols. 1 and 2).Geneva: Author. Wu,F.(2002).New partnersor old brothers?GONGOs intransnationalenvironmental advocacy in China. ChinnE11viro11111e11tSeries, 5, 45-58. Young, 0. R.(1979).Co111plinnce and public nut/10rity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Yu,J.,&Yang, J. (2001).NationaleffortstotacklepollutioninTni/111Lnke.RetrievedMay 12, 2001,fromhttp:/ /www.chinaenvironment.com/ english/ channel/pollution/waste/ taihu.html YunnanShengTongjiJu.(1986-1996).Y111111n11To11gjiNin11jinn[Statisticalyearbookof Yunnan].Beijing: Zhong Guo Tongji Chuban She. ]011nthn11Schwartzis nssistn11t professor of political science nttile State University of New York nt New Paltz where he teaches courses in enviro11111e11tpolitics n11di11temntionnl relations.HisP/1.D. i11political scie11ce is fro111theU11iversity of Toro11to.Hisresearchinterests include evnl11nti11gthe effect of various factorsi11J111e11ci11gpolicy e11force111ent,specifically, the role of civil society groups. Hisregional focusisdeveloping cou11triesintheAsiaPncific/Chi11n. Gordon, AyiembaITHE KIPEPEO PROJECT83 Njoroge,1999).ASFis part of the East African Coastal Forest/Eastern Arc Forest complex that ranks among the top 25 biodiversity hotspots on Earth (Myers, Mittermeier, Mittermeier, da Fonseca, &Kent, 2000). The forest is home to six globally threatened bird species and an additional five bird species that are coastal endemics. Of the six globally threatened species,two,theSokokeScopsOwlandClarke'sWeaver,areeach known only from ASF and one other site (East Usambara Mountains in TanzaniaandtheDakatchaWoodlands,respectively) . Afurthereight bird species (of a total of 270 species) found in ASF are regionally threat-ened. ASF also has an exceptionally diverse amphibian fauna, including thecoastalendemicBunty'sToad.Therearethreerarenear-endemic mammals(Ader'sDuiker,Golden-RumpedSengi,andtheSokoke Bushy-Tailed Mongoose).A small population of around 100 elephants livesintheforest.Therearesixtaxaofbutterfliesthatarecoastal endemicsincludingone(Charaxesblanda)thatisvirtuallyaforest endemic. An unknown number of other invertebrate species must also be forest endemics. The forestissurrounded on all sides by village communities. There are 51villages actually bordering on the forest and having a population of about 110,000 people. These people are predominantly of the Giriama tribe who settled in the area west of the forest more than 100 years ago and moved on to areas east of the forest in the 1950s and 1960s. Average household size ismore than 13,and 55%of the households consist of multiple families. The population density ofKilifi District has risen from 47 to 60 people per km2 between 1989 and 1997 (Government of Kenya, 1997). The original population of the surrounding area belonged tothe hunter-gatherer Sanyatribe.Prior tothe protection (gazettement)of the forest by the colonial government of Kenya in 1932, they used it freely for their subsistence needs. A small group of Sanya still lives on the northern side of the forest.Although they grow maize and other crops, they still huntintheforestandarefrequentlyinvolvedinillegalcuttingof polewood. Subsistenceagriculture isthemainoccupationofthesurrounding population. This includes the production of maize, cassava, and beans, with income supplemented by cash crops such as cashew, mango, and coconut. Agricultural land is generally poor, and crop yields are low. The mean size of farm holdings is 6.9 ha (0.5 ha per capita), with farms grow-ing an average of 1.6 ha of maize. Most households own goats (average of fiveper household),buttsetsefliesandalackof grazingare con-straints tocattle keeping.Although many uses of the forest for subsis-tence or income generation are illegal,they still continue. Forest usage includes collection of water, fuelwood, poles, and herbs; butterfly farm-ing;andhunting of wildlifeformeat.Participatoryassessmentswith localcommunities indicatethat building polesareperhapsthe single most important product used from the forest. Communities on the west-84JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT &DEVELOPMENT em side of the forest rely on it more heavily than those on the east due to differences in availability of trees on private land and a greater degree of comparative affluence on the east. In 1991the average declared household income in the forest-adjacent community was estimated at KSh 17,300, giving a per capita income of only KSh1,470($20at current rates)(Mogaka, 1991). In 1993,an inde-pendent survey along the wealthier eastern margin of the forest gave a per capita income of KSh 2,728 ($40)(Maundu, 1994). By any standards, this is an impoverished community, and it is not surprising that its mem-bers have had little concern for the conservation of Arabuko-Sokoke For-est. Instead, the forest has been seen as the source of many of their prob-lems. In 1991, 96% of the farmers (N = 32) were unhappy with the forest, and 54% wanted it completely cleared for settlement (Mogaka, 1991). In a follow-upsurvey in 1993 (Maundu, 1994), 59% (N = 142)wanted the whole forest cleared. The reasons for this discontent will be familiar to any conservationist workingwiththelegacyof state-controlledforestsinthedeveloping world: poverty, resourcedenial,wildlifecropraiding, and hunger for land (Maundu, 1994; Mogaka, 1991). Because of poverty, the local com-munities were forced to rely on the" free resources" of the forest, yet their legal access to these resources was strictly limited by the forest depart-ment and the status of the forest as a gazetted (protected) forest reserve. To gain access, they had to risk arrest and beatings and/ or pay bribes to corrupt forest guards. Poverty was worsened by wildlife crop raiding by animals from the forest (mainly elephants and baboons), causing consid-erable losses of maize, cassava, mangoes, and coconuts. Elephants also caused deaths, injuries, and destruction to property and were the single most important cause of hostility to the forest.There is no government compensation for loss of crops or injuries caused by wildlife; only in the event ofdeathisanycompensationpaid,andthenonlyKSh30,000 ($400), and that only after persistent claims. Hunger for land resulted in forest invasions in 1993-1994, led by local councilors, and tosustained campaigns forthe removal of government protection (degazettement)in two areas of the forest (Kararacha and Mida). The following quotations (Maundu, 1994) give a good impression of community feelings about the forest in the early 1990s: This is Government's forest, you cannot get inside, if you are caught there with even a grass twig you are arrested. You receive a thorough beating even when goats are found browsing at the edge of the forest. It is not useful to me but tothe Government because it benefits from it. Elephants have made us poor here. We don' t plant here because of elephants. Gordon, AyiembaITHE KIPEPEO PROJECT85 The land is frustrating because whatever you plant is destroyed. Those of us who live near the forest endure a lot but this is unknown to the authorities. It [the forest]is a saving for farm land. (p.34) The situation at Arabuko-Sokoke provided the context and the ratio-nale for Kipepeo, a project administered by the East Africa Natural His-tory Society (EANHS, now Nature Kenya [NK]) in partnership with the National Museums of Kenya (NMK).Kipepeo was started in 1993 with $50,000fromtheGlobalEnvironmentFacility(GEF)SmallGrants Programme. Its objective was to change local attitudes by enabling the forest-adjacent community to get cash incomes from rearing forest but-terfliesforexporttothelive butterfly exhibit industry inEurope and America.Thisindustrydependsontheimportationoflivebutterfly pupaefromtropicalbutterflyfarms.Theadult butterfliesthateclose fromthese pupae are flown in simulated natural surroundings in pro-tected enclosures, and members of the public pay gate fees to view them. From small beginnings in Britain and Japan in the late 1970s, the live but-terfly exhibit industry has grown to become a multimillion-dollar global enterprise. In the early 1990s, there were no large-scale suppliers of Afri-can butterflies forthe exhibit market. Butterflyfarmingisparticularlywellsuitedasanincome-earning ventureforforest-adjacentcommunities.Itrequiresrelativelylittle investment,usessimpleequipmentandmaterialsthatareusually locally available in one formor another,andthe basic skills are easily learned.Moreover, because the resource base forbutterfly farming(in terms of both butterflies and foodplants) depends on the continued pres-ence of forest habitat, butterfly farmers experience a daily and compel-ling linkage between their livelihood and forest conservation. Butterfly farming also has spin-offs for ecotourism through the publicity and curi-osity that it generates (particularly when first introduced) and through the opportunity it provides for living and attractive displays of its own operations and of forest biodiversity. Project History It was decided to work with those farmers who lived immediately on the eastern forest edge because they were easily accessible, nearest the resource, suffered most fromcrop raiding, and knew most about what wasgoingon intheforest.PatrickMaundu,an NMKethnobotanist, organizedmeetingsthroughthelocalchiefswheretheprojectwas explained. The households immediately next tothe forest were identi-fied. Maundu then visited each of these households, conducting a ques-86JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT &DEVELOPMENT tionnaireand recruiting participants.He interviewed 142households, and 133 of them agreed to participate (Maundu, 1994). Information on theforestbutterfliescamefroma9-monthinventory andmonitoring master's degree research project (Ayiemba,1997).Thisshowed which species were most abundant, where, and when and provided valuable baseline data on butterfly abundance before the project began. Between Juneand December1993,thegroundworkforthe project was completed.Butterfly speciestargeted forexport were selected on thebasisof likelydemand,seasonalavailability,and easeof rearing. Local larval food plants were determined and seedlings grown in a nurs-eryattheprojectheadquartersatGedeRuins.1 Breedingtechniques were developed and fieldtested using 25volunteers fromthe commu-nity.A large flight cage and a breeding shed were built. A contract was negotiatedwithaU.K.entomologicaldealer,andexportprocedures were developed in consultation with the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) andacouriercompanyinMombasa(Gordon,1994).Government involvementinthe projectwasrestrictedtograntingapprovalforits operations through the District Development Committee and the issu-ing of export and forest access permits by KWSand FD. ExportsstartedonscheduleinFebruary1994,8monthsafterthe receipt of funds to start the project, and by the end of 1994, Kipepeo had exported more than 10,000 pupae belonging to 14 species, earning a little under U.S. $16,000 in revenues. The next 4 years saw steady growth in exportsandrevenues,withmore23,000pupae exportedin1997and more than $41,000 earned by the project (Figure 1). El Nino rains starting in 1997 halted growth in 1998, but 1999 was a record year, with almost 55,000 pupae of more than 30species exported and more than $81,000 earned. Exports peaked in 2000with gross earnings of $99,320.Bythe end of 2001, cumulative export earnings had passed $400,000, more than eight times the initial grant that set upthe project, and annual income had grown sixfoldsince1994. The project has been financially self-sustaining since 1999 (see Table 1 for a breakdown of costs and income in 2000and 2001) . The number of butterfly farmers increased from 133 in 1994 to 700 in 2002, and they now completely surround the forest. Limits on the number of butterfly farmers are set by the market rather than by resource scarcity, and there are currently no plans to further expand the number of farmers unless new markets are identified. In 1994, a third of the pupae were produced by Kipepeo staff members at the project headquarters at Gede Ruins, whereas by 2000 all of prod uc-tion was community based. The average price paid per pupahas also increased so that community earnings have grown fasterthan those of 1. Gede Ruins is a national monument site containing the ruins of a 13th-century Swa-hili fortified settlement and a small coral-rag forest. It belongs to the National Museums of Kenya and lies 18 kilometres south of the tourist resort of Malindi. Gordon, AyiembaITHE KIPEPEO PROJECT87 19941995199619971998199920002001 Year Figure 1:Kipepeo Export Earnings: 1994-2001 Table1 Financial Breakdown of Butterfly Export Business (2000-2001) Item Number of shipped pupae Invoice value of shipped pupae (US$) Value of viable shipped pupae (US$) Loss rate (%$) Exchange rate (KSh/US$) Earnings from viable shipped pupae (KSh) Production costs for pupae: purchases (KSh) Production costs for pupae: operational (KSh) Production costs for pupae: salaries Profit from pupae business (KSh) 2000 56,023 113,518 99,320 12.51 73.56 7,306,227 2,806,415 2,080,248 1,221,270 1,198,294 2001 50,494 103,471 94,055 9.10 76.30 7,176,432 2,529,666 2,042,078 901,430 1,703,258 Note: The loss rate is expressed in terms of lost income in dollars and arises because some of the pupae do not survive the transit process and no payments are received for these. Pro-duction costs include payments tothe community forthe butterfly pupae they produce together with all other costs incurred by the normal operations of the butterfly export busi-ness.AsacommunityprojectoftheEastAfricaNaturalHistory SocietyandNational Museums of Kenya, butterfly earnings are tax exempt. the project (Figure 2).In 1994 they amounted to just over KSh 0.26 mil-lion (about $5,000 at that time). In 2000, annual earnings were just over KSh2.8million($38,000atthattime),atenfoldincreasesince1994. Cumulative community earnings from1994to2001exceededKSh10 million ($130,000 at today's rates). The growth in community and project earnings from 1994 to 1999 was madepossiblebyanexpandingmarket,particularlyintheUnited 88JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT &DEVELOPMENT 2,000,000+-------------------! .c en 1,500,000+-------------------! c: .E "' UJ1,000,000+-------------------! 199419951996199719981999 Years Figure 2:Community Earnings From Butterfly Sales: 1994-2001 20002001 States. In 1994, Kipepeo exported to a single client. By 1999 there were 11 major customers, two based in the United Kingdom and accounting for morethan 60%of salesandtherest inthe UnitedStatesand Canada. Since 1999, however, markets have been more or less static. In 2001they were impacted by the foot and mouth epidemic in Britain andthe Sep-tember11thatrocityintheUnitedStates,bothof whichreducedthe numbers of tourists.Despite the setbacksthat periodically affect tour-ism, butterfly exhibits have proved to be enduring public attractions and are now a standard feature of the tourist industry from Asia to the Amer-icas.The majorityare owned by the private sector,although some are run by museums and nonprofit organizations. They have attracted sub-stantial private and corporate investment: A highly successful exhibit at Niagara Falls was constructed in 1996 at acost of $11million and was profitable in its first year of operation. ASelf-Evaluation This brief history of Kipepeo raises several questions. How much has it added value to Arabuko-Sokoke Forest? Has it affected local attitudes to the forest? How much has it succeeded in improving community live-lihoods? Have there been any unanticipated negative effects? Have the earnings been evenly spread? Have the socially and economically disad-vantagedsectionsofthecommunitybenefitedfromKipepeo?Have there been any other spin-offs for conservation? Has butterfly harvest-ing for farming operations affected wild butterfly populations in the for-Gordon,AyiembaITHE KIPEPEO PROJECT89 est?IsKipepeo sustainable? Can it be replicated? Some of theseques-tions are more easily answered than others. ADDED VALUE Kipepeo has certainly added value to the forest. Table 2 shows official institutional revenues generated from the forest from 1996 to 2001. Over this 6-year period, butterfly sales account for 80% of all recorded reve-nues from the forest, with 15% coming from forest department licenses, fines, and royalties for timber products; 3% from tourism; and 2% from beekeeping. This could be viewed as further evidence for the high value of non timber forest products but is best seen as an artifact of unrecorded andillegaloff-take(particularlyofBrachylaennforcarvingand polewood for house construction), low government royalties for timber products(especiallyfuelwood),andaforestfromwhichmostofthe commercially valuable timber has already been removed. One inciden-talconclusion, however, isunaffected by thiscaveat: Tourismisa low earner in a forest where the average visitor sees little but trees. ATTITUDES AND LIVELIHOODS Kipepeo has had an effect on both attitudes and livelihoods, but it is hard to judge how great this effect has been.In 1997, Patrick Maundu repeated hissocioeconomicandattitudinalsurveyof 1993(Maundu, Sojah, &Kilili, 1997).He foundthat the proportion of Kipepeo farmers wanting the entire forest cleared and settled had fallenfrom 59% to 16% andthatbutterflyearningscontributedsome73%offarmers'cash incomes from farm products. In 1999, the average butterfly earnings of a subset of 217 Kipepeo farmers had risen to KSh 5,854, more than twice the per capita income recorded in 1993(KSh 2,728). The problem is of course that Kipepeo farmers constitute a small frac-tion of the forest-adjacent community(at best, including family mem-bers, some 8% of the 110,000 people in the 18 sublocations next to the for-est). For this reason, an independent assessment by the African Wildlife Foundation concluded that Kipepeo had had little penetration although its impact had been significant for those who participated in the project. It is clear that Kipepeo alone cannot solve the problem of local hostility to the forest, but at another level, its impact has been greater than is at first apparent. Since Kipepeo started, the local commwtity has been able, for the first time, to enjoy legal cash revenues from the forest. The awareness of this, aided by favorable local press coverage, has spread beyond the target group of Kipepeo farmers and has influenced public perceptions of the forest, not least in the consciousness of the district administrations. A more concrete demonstration of impacts on attitudes has emerged fromthefarmers'actionsinresponsetothethreatenedexcisionat 90JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT &DEVELOPMENT Table 2 Recorded Revenues From Arabuko-Sokoke Forest (1996-2001) Item Kenya Wildlife Service tourism Forest department revenues Beekeeping Butterfly sales Total KSh 911,653 4,785,753 805,106 25,794,566 32,297,078 % 2.8 14.8 2.5 79.9 Kararachaandthe1994squatterinvasionofthisarea.Someofthe Kipepeo farmers protested to the local district commissioner against the campaignfordegazettement.OneoftheKipepeoSelf-HelpGroups2 (formed with the assistance of the project) delivered a protest letter to a presidentialcommissionwhen itvisitedtoinvestigatethematter.In December 1997, a spokesman for the farmers went to the press, saying in theDailyNation3 that the forest should be left alone and that any exci-sions would deprive them of their butterfly farming income. President Moi has since made it clear that there would be no excisions at Arabuko-Sokoke. There were several forces behind this decision, including vigor-ouslobbyingbyNairobi-basednongovernmentalorganizations,but thereisawidespread belief onthegroundthat communitydivisions (pro- and antidegazettement)related to Kipepeo greatly weakened their claims on the forest and the case for degazettement. This has had unfortu-nate consequences in the form of death threats to Kipepeo farmers from community members who supportedthe degazettementcampaign and who also suspected that the butterfly farmers were informing the forest management about poaching activities in the forest. In terms of livelihoods, an important issue, concealed by average and total earnings is the distribution of income within the participating indi-viduals and households. Figure 3 shows this distribution of the subset of 217farmersin 1999.It isregrettably but inevitably J-shaped,broadly reflecting the amount of effort each individual/household put into but-terfly farming. Ten percent of the group earned nothing at all,and 53% earned less than KSh 3,000. Nineteen percent earned between 3,000 and 6,000shillings, whereas 4%earned more than KSh 27,000.The biggest earners were the representatives of the self-help groups who are respon-2. Eight Kipepeo self-help groups were formed by the farmers in 1996. Each group had itsownconstitution(broadlydedicatedtoconservationanddevelopment)andbank account and was registered withthe Department of Social Services. Kipepeoholds back KSh 5 foreach butterfly pupa purchased fromthe members of each group and pays the accumulated amount into the self-help group savings account at the end of the year. 3. The Daily Nation is Kenya's most widely read newspaper with a circulation of 180,000 and an estimated readership of 3.8 million. Gordon, AyiembaITHE KIPEPEO PROJECT91 0-30003001-6000600 19CXlO9001-1 200012001 -1500015001-1600016001-21 00021001-2400024001-27000>27000 KSh earned Figure 3:Frequency Distribution of Farmer Income Levels in 1999 (N = 217Farmers) sibleforcollectinganddistributingthepayments forthepupae pro-duced by their groups and who got KSh 5 per pupa for doing so. The top farmer, who was a representative, earned KSh 78,825 ($1,120). This sub-set of farmers was not characterized for social status and wealth ranking, so the data do not address the question of benefits to the disadvantaged, although it isworth noting that thetopfarmer,Kidhuku Baya,isdis-abled and has concentrated on butterfly farming precisely because it is physically undemanding work. OTHER BENEFITS The major other benefits of Kipepeo have been in awareness raising andeducation.Morethan10,000visitorstotheprojecthavelearned about the forest and its adjacent communities. For most of them this was their first exposure tothe biological uniqueness of the coastal forests of Kenya and tothe problems of forest-adjacent communities (most nota-bly with forest wildlife). More than 50 schools and polytechnic and uni-versity groups have also visited the project. Through the efforts of a Brit-ishvolunteer,TansyBliss,Kipepeoestablished17WildlifeClubsin forest-adjacent schools, and the project has served as a focus for some of their activities. The Kipepeo farmers and their families have also learned about the forest and its global significance as well as about the butterflies and their foodplants. They now have an easy familiarity with many of theLatinnames,andtheirin-depthexperienceinrearinghastaught them about insect parasites and diseases.Many of thechildren know more about insect life histories than the average zoology undergraduate in the country's universities. On a wider front,three short videos on the project have been broad-cast on international television (one on more than 80 different TV chan-nelsworldwide),andradio interviews have been airedontheKenya 92JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT &DEVELOPMENT BroadcastingCorporation,4 BBCWorldService,StudioBrussels,US Public Broadcasting Service, and the Voice of America African Service. There have been numerous articles on the project in magazines and the national and international press. In 1998, Kipepeo was 1of10 winners of the Dubai International Award forBest Practices in Improving the Liv-ing Environment,5 and this led to further publicity in the international print and electronic media. Talks on the project and the forest have been giveninKenya,Uganda,Dubai,Britain,CostaRica,andtheUnited States.Allofthisfreepublicityhashelpedtoraiseawarenessabout Arabuko-Sokoke Forest. The cost of the airtime alone would far exceed the money raised forthe project from donors. SUSTAINABILITY AND REPLICABILITY ThesustainabilityofKipepeodependson(a)maintainingand improvingproductionlevels,(b)expandingmarkets,and(c)the resource base.Current plans aretoincrease production levelsinpace with expanding markets, but this is an awkward balancing act that leads to disappointment for the client or the community when it fails. The big-gest problem is the vulnerability of butterfly operations to unfavorable weather.TheeffectofElNinoonproductionwasnotedearlierand resulted from excessive rains. There was no dry season in 1997-1998, and the normal boom in production in May and June did not take place in 1998. Figure 4 shows monthly production levels in the 2 years: That for 1999 is normal, and that for 1998 aberrant. It is likely that the more or less continual rainsthrough the intervening dry season allowedpathogen and parasite levels to persist through the dry season months.Another factor may have been the lack of a nutrient flush in the forest at the start of the rains in May and June. If too much rain isa problem, too little is worse. If there were two or three dry years in succession, Kipepeo would needsupport tostay afloat.Butterfly farmingisjustasvulnerableto weather as is conventional agriculture. Marketspresentafurtherchallenge.Althoughthegeneralmarket trend has been upward, four clients have been lost: one went bankrupt (leaving the project with a bad debt of $4,000), two withdrew because of anunsuitablespeciesmixfortheirparticularexhibits,andonewas dropped after pressure from a rival. There is still an overreliance on one majorclient(StratfordButterflyFarm),andif thisclientwerelost, Kipepeowould be in trouble(Figure 5). Kipepeoisalsolikely toface increasing competition as butterfly farming spreads through the African 4. The KenyaBroadcasting Service has up to 8 million listeners within Kenya. 5. The DubaiInternationalAwardisjointly administeredbytheDubai Municipality and the UnitedNations Habitat programme. It recognizes outstanding achievements in improving the living environment. In 1998, there were 450 submissions worldwide. The 10 winning projects each received a cash prize ($30,000) and atrophy. Gordon, AyiembaITHE KIPEPEO PROJECT93 Month lo 199sa 1999 I Figure 4:Kipepeo Monthly Exports: 1998-1999 $3,192.78 $30,549.00 Figure 5:Kipepeo Earnings From Different Clients in 1999 C ButterflyPavilion Butterfly Place D Cambridge,Ontario 0Chesterfield,Ohio Day CFlorida London Pupae Supplies 0Michael Boppre North Carolina D Philadelphia DStratford continent. Maintaining and improving product quality, continued atten-dance at the annual International Congress of Butterfly Exhibitors and Suppliers6,and a Web site (www.kipepeo.org) will all help tokeep the market edge that Kipepeo currently enjoys, but developing a local mar-94JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT &DEVELOPMENT ket in the form of a tourist exhibit in Mombasa is essential for longer term market security. A proposal forsuch an exhibit isbeing developed for submission to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the World-Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). The resource base of Kipepeo is the forest itself, its vegetation, and its wild populations of butterflies. As long as the forest is there, the vegeta-tion will not be a problem, but what about the butterflies? Table 3 shows results fromtwo 9-month periods of butterfly monitoring, one in 1993 before butterfly harvesting started and one in 1997 after 4 years of opera-tions.Monitoring involved walkingtransectsandcounting sightings. This produced data on 60 species, of which 23 had been harvested and 37 had not.Asclimaticconditions and overall butterfly abundance were very different in the two years, comparisons between them of numbers on an individual species basis would not be helpful. Instead, the overall ranks are compared for the two periods on the hypothesis that if harvest-ing had adversely affected wild populations, then there would be a sig-nificantdifferenceinrankingandtheharvestedspecieswouldhave lower ranks in 1997 than in 1993. The results show that although butter-flies were significantly more abundant in 1997, there was no significant change in rank abundance forthe set of 60species andthat harvested speciesactuallyranked nonsignificantlyhigher in abundancein 1997 than they had in 1993. On the basis of this evidence, butterfly harvesting seems not to be having any impact on wild populations, but the project continues to monitor the situation. The last question is whether Kipepeo is replicable. The answer is yes, subject to markets, the capacity to get pupae to the markets quickly (in practice, within 4 to 5 days from pupation), and rainfall patterns. Costa Rica, where butterfly farming has been practiced since the early 1980s, currently exports around $1million worth of live butterflies a year, and the market for East African butterflies must be at least as large. Even so, the market ceiling is low. Kipepeo is only an hour's drive away on a tar-mac road from international couriers, and the paperwork required for export can now be obtained in a matter of minutes: Similar conditions of rapid access to couriers and minimal paperwork would be essential for any replicate operation. The other factor in Kipepeo's favor is the rainfall pattern:Althoughtherains start toolatetocatchthe annualsurgein global demand that starts in March and April and ends in October, peak production (June to August) still coincides with the main market season. A butterfly farm in an area where the rains came a little earlier in the year would be well placed to succeed. 6.The International Congress of Butterfly Exhibitors and Suppliers is attended by the world's leading butterfly farmers and butterfly exhibitors and was first held in 1997. It pro-vides a major marketing opportunity for butterfly farmers to make personal contacts with their clients. Gordon, Ayiemba ITHEKIPEPEO PROJECT95 Table 3 Counts of Butterflies in Arabuko-Sokoke Nature Reserve in 1993 and 1997 MeanMean CountCount TotalTotal19931997 Cou11tCollnt(189(187RankRank Species19931997Hours)Hours)19931997 Papilio constantinus*5221,2592.766.73108 Papilio dardm111s*2658321.404.451614 Papilio11ireus*4706392.493.421220 Papilio demodorns*817680.434.113116 Gmplziwnphilonoe*1202550.631.362632 Gmphiumleo11idas*1420.070.014954 Gmphiumkirbyi*70200.370.113446.5 Gmphiwn co/01111a*1355470.712.932424 Gmplzillmantheus*1642700.871.442029 Gmplziwnport/won*642100.341.123534 Dixeaclwrina1586040.843.232122 Catopsilia flore/la7278833.854.72712 Eure111aspecies1,7224,2929.1122.9522 Pinacopteryx eviphia21280.110.1545.545 Nephroniatlwlassina2344461.242.391926 Eron incleodom1,4062,3557.4412.5936 Colotisregina4957832.624.191115 Colotisione7326293.873.36621 Colotiseuippe9139764.835.2259 Colotiseris2521181.330.631738 Colotis auxo1142650.601.422830 Colotis evagore2400.130.004358 Belenoiscreona3165,1141.6727.35141 Belenois gidica73350.041.7956.527 Belenoisthysa6212,5513.2913.6485 Appias epap!zia489340.254.993610 Leptosia a/cesta1,8833,3019.9617.6514 Mylothris agathina76340.400.183343.5 Danauschrysippus*1042640.551.412931 Amauris niavius*750.040.0356.551 A111aurisoch/ea800.040.005458 Melanitisleda*221340.120.724435.5 Bicyc/11ssafitza1422970.751.592228 Ypthimaasterope2800.150.004158 Euryplmm aclilys80360.420.193242 Bebeariacliriemhilda29200.150.114046.5 E11phaedmneophro11*3278561.734.581313 Neptisspecies2351331.240.711837 Byb!iailitlzyia455180.242.773825 E11ryteladryope2540.130.024252.5 (co11ti1111ed) 96JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT &DEVELOPMENT Table 3 (continued) MeanMean CountCount TotalTotal19931997 CountCount(189(187RankRank Species19931997Hours)Hours)19931997 Hypolinmasmisipp11s*57414503.047.7597 Hypolimnasdeceptor1029030.544.833011 Hypolimnasanthedon6140.030.0758.548 Salamis anacardii*121340.060.725035.5 f1111oniaoenone*2797661.484.101517 f1moniahierta21340.110.1845.543.5 f unonianatalica1415750.753.072323 Junoniaterea640.030.0258.552.5 Phalantaphalantha91942164.8622.5543 Acraeaspecies1257440.663.982518 Pardopsispunctatissima46100.240.053749 Phsycaeneuraleda1196720.633.592719 Charaxesvaranes*432420.231.293933 Charaxescandiope*890.040.055450 Charaxes cithaeron*18950.100.514739 Charaxesprotoclea*17390.090.214841 Euxanthe wakefieldi*1110.060.005155 Tirwnulapetiverana*4470.020.256040 Pseudacraeaboisduvali1000.050.005258 Hannatheobene800.040.005458 Wilcoxon'sSpeannan's SingedTestCorrelation Unharvestedz = 2.949p = .003r2 = 0.9772MeanMean rank=rank= 28.6830.18 Harvestedz = 3.832p < .0011'2= 0.9926MeanMean (marked*)rank=rank= 33.2330.98 All speciesr2 = 0.9698 Summary and Conclusions TheKipepeoProjectlinksconservationanddevelopmentat Arabuko-Sokoke Forest on the north coast of Kenya through community-basedbutterflyfarming.It wasstartedin1993andhasearnedover $400,000 since then through the export of live butterfly pupae to the live Gordon, AyiembaITHE KIPEPEO PROJECT97 butterfly exhibit industry in Europe and North America. The butterflies have been reared by the forest-adjacent community using parental but-terfly stock from the forest and forest food plants for the caterpillars. But-terfly monitoring has shown that there have been no negative effects on the wild populationsof butterflies in the forest. Community earnings have accumulated to more than $130,000since1993 and have had signif-icant positive effects both on livelihoods and attitudes toward the con-servation of the forest.Kipepeo has shown, albeit on a small scale, that integrating conservation and development can be a practical and effec-tive strategy for natural resource management. Acknowledgements An earlier versionof thisarticlewas presented atthe International UnionforConservationofNatureandNaturalResources(IUCN) Regional Biodiversity Forum in Mombasa in 2000. The authors acknowl-edgefinancialsupportfromtheGlobalEnvironmentFacilitySmall GrantsProgramme,theIUCN-NetherlandsTropicalRainForest Programme, the Biodiversity Support Program, a consortium of World Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy, and the World Resources Insti-tute, with funding by the United States Agency for International Devel-opment,theChicagoZoologicalSocietyandBrookfieldZoo,the National Museums of Kenya, and the EU-funded BirldLife International Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Management and Conservation Project. Above all, we thank the farmers of Arabuko-Sokoke who made Kipepeo a real-ity.The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S.Agency for International Devel-opment or any of the organizations or funding bodies. References Ayiemba,W.0. (1997).AstI1dyof tlzebutterflydiversityof Arnbllko-SokokeForest,Ke11yn. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Nairobi. Bennun, L.A., &Njoroge, P.(1999).lnzportnntBird ArensinKenya.Nairobi, Africa: Nature Kenya. Burgess, N. D., Clarke, G. P., &Rodgers, W.A.(1998). Coastal forests of eastern Africa: Sta-tus, endemism patterns and their potential causes. Biological foumnl of tlze Linnnenn Soci-ety, 64,337-367. Collar, N. J., & Stuart, S. N. (1988). Key forests for tlzrentened birds in Africa (Monograph Num-ber 3). Cambridge, UK:International Council forBird Preservation. Gordon, I. J.(1994).Kipepeoproject:Consultant'sreport.Unpublished manuscript. Government of Kenya.(1997). KilifiDistrictdevelop111entplan, 1997-2001. Nairobi, Africa: Government Printers. 98JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT &DEVELOPMENT Maundu, P.(1994). Socio-eco110111ic survey nnd forest attitude report of tlze co111111unityborderi11g Arnbuko-SokokeForestn11dGn111eReserve. Unpublishedreport oftheKipepeoProject, Nairobi, Africa. Maundu, P., Sojah, L., &Kilili, G. (1997). Report 011tlze i111pncl of Kipepeo project 011tlzeeco110111ic status nnd forest attitude of tlze co111111unity bordering Arnbuko-Sokoke ForestReserve. Unpub-lished manuscript. Mogaka,H.(1991).Localutilisntionof tlzeArnbuko-SokokeForestResen;e.Unpublished manuscript. Myers,N.,Mittermeier, R.A.,Mittermeier, C.G.,daFonseca, G.A.B.,&Kent, J.(2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature,403,853-858. ln11Gordo11cn111eto Africa fro111Britain to work ns n u11iversity lecturer i111971.Si11cetlze11,lze hns tnug/11 nl five AfricanU11iversitiesiiiGhnnn, Zi111bnbwe,n11dKe11yn.lll1993 he left tlze university tenchi11gprofessio11n11d111ovedtoKilifi onthe Ke11yn11canst to sin rttheKipepeobutterfly fnn11i11g project nt Arnbuko-Sokoke Forest. lll1998, Dr. Gordon left Kipepeo to beco111e coordinator of the EU-fu11dedBirdLifel11ter11ntionnlArnbuko-SokokeForestCo11servntio11n11dMn11nge111e11tProject, which ended in March 2002. He currently works ns the liend of theE11viro111nentnlHen/thDivision ntthe l11temntio11nlCentre of lllsectPhysiology nndEcology. Wnshi11gto11 Ayie111bn hns been n research scientist with the Nntio11nl Museums of Kenya since 1994. Currently lieisthe 111a11ngerof the KipepeoProject, n position held since 111id-1998.Hetrni11ed as n co11servntio11biologist nltheUniversity of Nairobi n11d/msbee11actively involved inbiodiversity co11servntio11 n11d sustni11able use activities in the Arnbuko-Sokoke Forest area.He isn 111e111ber of the Arnbuko-Sokoke ForestMn11nge111e11tTen111thnl comprises four gover11111e11tdepart111entstlmt col-lnbornte closely witlz a ForestAdjacent Dwellers Associntio11, n11d he ischair tothe RuralDevelop-111e11tWorki11gGroup of thetea111.